Sat May 05, 2012 at 06:36:14 AM EDT

Senator Webb has called for lifting all economic sanctions against Burma. What seem slowly unfolding changes in that nation after decades of tyranny are significant achievements on two fronts. They merit the potential galvanizing effects of Webb's proposal.

"Many people are beginning to say that the democratisation process here is irreversible. It's not so." - Aung San Suu Kyi

The strange new territory the relationship between the United States and Burma may enter is one that could shape the application of power into the future. It is promising. For once the United States may have imposed its will on an adversary without resorting to military intervention. Next it establishes a dynamic in the relationship where both parties pursue interests that are complementary and mutually beneficial while continued reform is its own reward. This is a balancing act. American temperament and policy usually reflect our impatience and many will challenge what may be perceived as acting too swiftly. But the window of opportunity will not remain open forever. Six months from now, when our attention is elsewhere and we have not acted, there will be no reason for Burma's leadership to perform in crisis in any way differently than has kept them in power to date.

Sanctions are indiscriminate. There are dozens of views as to their efficacy, but one fact remains: sanctions most affect those with the least to lose. This is illustrated by the people of rural North Korea who subsist on grass while the plump children of the ruling elite eat candy bars in posh Pyongyang hotel lobbies. In Burma the ethnic minorities have suffered greatly from the sanctions. And the ethnic minorities threaten the stability and progress of the nascent democratization. The fact is that unless the nation as a whole sees better conditions, there is little chance that this fragile condition can be sustained. Reforms should be associated with and reinforced by improved economic activity and conditions.

Lifting sanctions on Burma does not equal normalizing diplomatic relations or even full trading relations. Lifting the sanctions will provide diplomatic leverage. The current full-on policy leaves nothing on the table with which to bargain. Our only remaining option for influence is the use of force. That hasn't worked out extremely well in any part of Asia.

"...executive decisions to remove sanctions can still target and blacklist the assets or activities of specific "bad actors" from the previous military junta so that they will not benefit from economic relations with the United States. These decisions do not require legislation; importantly, they can also be reversed, should the situation in Burma deteriorate." - Senators Webb and Inhofe

My experience in Asia and Africa establishing a baseline with military counterparts informs my perspective. In struggling nations, what you find is that even when the functionaries share common ground with you, they need to take away more than goodwill in order to move the negotiations. This is only human. Our own common law heritage requires an exchange of value for a contract to be binding. We need to bind the Burmese to progress.

Sources close to the U.S. government told me that U.S. delegations to Burma are generally impressed by the openness of the leadership of the Tatmadaw (the armed forces). "Whenever senior U.S. officials meet a Burmese military chief or defense minister and raise the issue of human rights violations committed by the army in ethnic areas, the military doesn't deny it," says a source. "They admit that things are not very pretty on the ground, and ask for U.S. assistance, including training for the Tatmadaw officers." Not bad. - Min Zin in Foreign Policy Magazine

On the surface, most Americans (who, unfortunately, spend maybe five minutes a year thinking about Southeast Asia) see Aung San Suu Kyi being seated in the Parliament as nothing more than what should be expected. It is much more than that. That she was able to speak out and still succeed demonstrates a tolerance for opposition and willingness for change unprecedented. She was under house arrest in 1990 when her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), won the election by a landslide. It was not allowed to take power. The fact that President Thein Sein's government, elected in 2010 (an election boycotted by the NLD), allows formal opposition is a dramatic change that merits the change in relations.

Not that the policies of Europe and Japan should drive ours, but it is important to note that both have already lifted most sanctions. These are our allies and their judgment deserves consideration. But most of all, for whatever reason, President Thein Sein has chosen the path toward democracy. We should help the Burmese pave it themselves by allowing economic prosperity.

Also at play and influencing our policies toward Burma (Myanmar) is the emerging competition between China and the U.S. and our allies for influence in Asia. That has been one of Jim Webb's major concerns for quite a while.

is pushing fast on lifting Burma sanctions not because the Burmese junta has proven its dedication to democracy (it has a loooong way to go in that regard) or human rights (ditto!), but that it's more important to line up countries with the U.S. against China, which Webb has seen as a hostile power, if not an enemy, for many years now. I disagree with Webb that China is necessarily an enemy, or even a hostile power to the U.S., so I'd tend to be less accommodating to the thugs in "Myanmar." But what do I know, I specialized in the Middle East (and international economics) in grad school...

Webb has developed quite an obsession about China as the next adversary for the U.S. I guess part of that reflects his navy past and his belief that we need to project naval power in Asia. I, too, disagree with Webb about the intentions of China. When that nation has a huge trade gap with us favoring them, why do they need a "cold war" or an arms race with the U.S.? After all, they could wreak havoc with us simply by dumping all that U.S. debt they hold. (Of course, that would destroy their biggest trading partner, and they are certainly not likely to do that.)

Where we cross the hostile "line" is difficult to say, but the competition is real. It may only be as hostile as the competition between oil companies. However, there are a number of neighbors who are edgy about the influence being exerted. Former Formosa for one is looking around for company.

Burma can go many ways, but the two most likely are central authority with a planned economy or fledgling democracy with a regulated economy. One tends to reward a ruling elite while the other provides an opportunity for more egalitarian participation. The one that our association and assistance can influence promises more for the nation as a whole but won't have a chance without us as a trading partner.

We spend much effort building up expectations with potential partners (like Eritrea) only to see their hopes dashed when we don't deliver. That always ends poorly for everyone. Isaias Afewerki was a willing ally and now he is completely unreliable. President Thein Sein appears prepared to cooperate.

And, we can always use sanctions as leverage if he backslides. Right now, Thein Sein has nothing to lose if he fails to fulfil his express intentions. And his subordinates have no proof that progress has its rewards to make their case.

in mainland China for years agree that there is an immense, underlying Han Chinese nationalism that is both hostile to foreigners (meaning mainly European/American culture) and aggressive in its yearning to re-establish a rather nebulous "greater China," sort of as if, say, the Italians yearned to re-establish Italian dominion over the classical Roman Empire (Mussolini had this idea, remember). It is based on a bone-deep conviction of the natural superiority of the Han Chinese "race," and the long history of the spread of Chinese culture, so that what they have in mind is pushing Chinese control to not only Tibet, Manchuria, and Sinkiang, but Taiwan, Burma, Korea, Japan, even the Philippines, maybe Indonesia, and so on. Does every Chinese partake of this attitude? No, but it is a strong current running under the radar, and it can be tapped at will by Chinese leaders. China has for thousands of years cycled between hunkering down into its basic original Han core and expanding outward over and over. Today, its neighbors, many of which have large populations of overseas Chinese, are uneasy, not without cause. So it goes.

The purpose of Blue Virginia is to cover Virginia politics from a progressive and Democratic perspective. This is a group blog and a community blog. We invite everyone to comment here, but please be aware that profanity, personal attacks, bigotry, insults, rudeness, frequent unsupported or off-point statements, "trolling" (NOTE: that includes outright lies, whether about climate science, or what other people said, or whatever), and "troll ratings abuse" (e.g., "troll" rating someone simply because you disagree with their argument) are not permitted and, if continued, will lead to banning. For more on trolling, see the Daily Kos FAQs. Also note that diaries may be deleted if they do not contain at least 2 solid paragraphs of original text; if not, please use the comments section of a relevant diary. For more on writing diaries, click here. Thanks, and enjoy!